Following the large-scale events like the Pulwama terrorist attack, Citizenship Amendment Act protests, and abolition of Article 370 in Jammu & Kashmir, UN Secretary-General António Guterres has always called upon India to exercise "maximum restraint." His approach has been the same: whenever India and Pakistan have engaged in conflict, or whenever India has seen some dramatic internal change, Guterres has called upon both sides to remain calm and attempt to solve things amicably.
In answer to the Balakot airstrike of 2019, during which some Indian security personnel lost their lives, Guterres denounced violence and emphasized bringing perpetrators to book. While doing so, he also appealed to India and Pakistan not to indulge in further hostilities and instead resolve issues through diplomacy.
This "restraint" buzzword was repeated after the Balakot airstrike as well as whenever tensions along the border increased.
When India revoked Article 370 and stripped Jammu & Kashmir of the special status, Guterres again expressed his concern and requested India not to take any action that could change the status of the state. He referred to the 1972 Simla Agreement that stresses the settlement of disputes peacefully between India and Pakistan.
During the CAA controversy, Guterres noted a concern that Muslims might be discriminated against and become stateless, despite the Indian government arguing that the law does not infringe on the rights of Indian citizens. His words came at a time when communal violence broke out in Delhi.
The Indian government has repeatedly rejected or mocked Guterres' comments, viewing them as "preachy" and not addressing the country's security concerns or law changes.
Indian authorities have, instead, been busy attempting to cope with terrorism and national security, especially after attacks such as the one on Pahalgam in April 2025.
Briefly, UN secretary-general Guterres has again and again called for restraint, talks, and settlement through peaceful means after dramatic events in India, but his statements have sometimes been seen in India as biased or out of touch with ground realities.
